BEFORE entering on the question that we intend more particularly to
discuss, there are some remarks that we deem it necessary to make on the
tone and general character of Dr. Vaughan’s pamphlet. And in the first
place, we were struck with the entire absence of scripture proof in
support of the views propounded. Assertions are made of the most
sweeping character, and inferences are thence drawn, involving matters of
the highest moment; and yet no passage of scripture is adduced in support
of these assertions. Thus we are told “that not only the fourth
commandment, but the whole decalogue has ceased to be, _as such_, the
rule of our life.” But the authority for this declaration is no-where
given. If this doctrine be plainly taught in the New Testament, surely
we should be informed where it is to be found.
Another thing that we could not help remarking, was the manner in which
the authority of the Old Testament is repudiated. “With reference to the
observance of the Sabbath, and to every point of moral duty, the appeal
now lies primarily to the scriptures of the New Testament, and
secondarily to any other records which we may possess of the practice of
the apostolical age.” How different is the mind of Dr. Vaughan from that
of the Apostle Paul on this important point. The Apostle tells us
(alluding more especially to the writings of the Old Testament), that all
scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Dr. Vaughan tells us in
effect, that our rule of practice is the New Testament and tradition!
Again Dr. V. condemns what he designates “a low and slavish spirit,” in
those who wish “to have an express _law_ to shew for our Christian
Sunday.” But we would ask, whether an express law makes the obedience of
love less sincere, less warm, less free and spontaneous? St. John tells
us, “this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his
commandments are not grievous.” In a matter of such moment we feel bound
to follow the opinion of the inspired Apostle.
Dr. Vaughan is of opinion, that “if we found even a _human_ institution,
which testified throughout Christendom, by a speaking sign, by an act at
once self-denying and beneficent, our faith in realities unseen and
future; even _this_ would bind us to its observance.” And yet when we
find in the word of God, a plain command to keep holy the Sabbath-day, we
are told that we are not legally bound to observe it, and that a wish to
have a law to that effect, bespeaks “a low and slavish spirit.” If,
however, the express will of God does not lead men to keep the Sabbath,
we cannot conceive of any other motive, by which (on Christian
principles) they will be induced to observe it. In man’s present
condition, liberty without law soon degenerates into licentiousness; and
no law but that of God, can so restrain and regulate men, as to preserve
real religious freedom. Repeal the laws by which life and property are
protected, and try to persuade men to be good and virtuous, from a love
of virtue, or from a sense of gratitude for the kindness and beneficence
of their rulers; and we should soon see the necessity and benefit of our
laws. And so it will be found, that the religious observance of the
Sabbath, will soon give place to a general neglect of God’s house, and to
practical atheism, if once the people are persuaded, that there is no
divine command to keep holy the Sabbath-day.
But while the authority of the Old Testament is thus repudiated, the Rev.
Doctor “_thinks_” _he_ “_sees_” (what other people may be blind to, and
about which he himself is _not quite certain_—so poor a guide is man’s
intellect in the absence of a plain command from God,) “indications from
the very earliest days, of which the Scriptures contain the record, of
man’s need of a periodical rest, and of God’s purpose to secure it to
him.” He believes “that it is essential to the well-being of his bodily
and mental structure.” He believes that it “is yet more essential to the
well-being of his immortal spirit, to his education for that state in
which earthly life issues.” He believes that this was “foreseen by man’s
Creator, and provided for by the disposer of man’s heart.” And yet he
does not believe that God has adopted the only means of securing this
all-important blessing permanently to his creatures. Once, indeed, for a
few hundred years he made it imperative upon a small portion of the human
race, to keep an appointment so essential to man’s present and eternal
welfare. But when by the mission of his Son, and the publication of the
gospel, he manifested his marvellous love to the whole human race, then,
by an unaccountable and inexplicable mode of procedure, he set aside this
appointment, and left him to the dictates of his own will, or to the
selfishness or caprice of those under whose authority he might happen to
be! All was thenceforth to be left to man’s mental perception and moral
sense! {7} Is this view consistent with God’s goodness? Is it
consistent with his general dealing with men under the present
dispensation? God has provided a Saviour for all men. He has commanded
the gospel to be preached to the whole human race. He has commanded all
men every where to receive the gospel. And yet he has abolished the only
command by which an opportunity can be permanently secured to all men, to
become acquainted with the truths of the gospel, and be made wise unto
salvation! Is this worthy of God? A human parent would not withhold
from his children, explicit instruction on any point that he deemed
essential to their welfare. He would not leave them to conjecture, but
would tell them plainly what was for their good. Is God less wise or
less good than man?
The Rev. Doctor evidently feels some difficulty in reconciling his views
with the teaching of the Church of England. For after speaking of the
privilege and blessing of Sabbath observance, as if conscious of the
dilemma in which his principles placed him, he proceeds to ask, “And
shall those who look back through long years upon their frequent failures
to improve the blessing, see no reason for the confession which bewails
their past neglect of it, and the prayer which asks help to honour it
(_i.e. the blessing_) hereafter?” Now we confess that we cannot help
feeling, as we think most must feel, that this attempt to escape from the
appearance of inconsistency in using the prayer alluded to, is most
unsatisfactory. The prayer to which allusion is here made, is offered by
the whole congregation immediately on the reading of the fourth
commandment by the Minister. Its language is, “Lord have mercy upon us,
and incline our hearts to keep this law.” And the meaning and intent of
the prayer are thus expressed in the rubric at the head of the
commandments in the Communion Service: “The Priest shall rehearse the ten
commandments; and the people shall, after every commandment, ask God
mercy for their transgression thereof for the time past, and grace to
keep the same for the time to come.” This, then, is the meaning of the
prayer; and in this there is necessarily implied a recognition of the
moral obligation of the commandment, with regret for its violation, as
well as a prayer for pardon, and for help to keep it in future. But is
this the meaning which Dr. Vaughan attaches to the language of this
prayer? No, with his views, it must be something of this sort: “Have
mercy upon us for not improving this blessing in time past, and incline
our hearts to honour this blessing in future.” Surely if the fourth
commandment be no longer in force, to use this prayer is to confess guilt
where no law has been transgressed, to ask pardon where no offence has
been committed, and to seek aid to amend what is not legally wrong.
Nor is this the only practical difficulty connected with the views in
question. We presume it is the duty of the Masters of our public
schools, as well as of the Clergy generally, to teach their charge the
Church Catechism. But in the Church Catechism are the following
questions and answers:—
_Question_. You said that your godfathers and godmothers did promise
for you, that you should keep God’s commandments. Tell me how many
there be.
_Answer_. Ten.
_Question_. Which be they?
_Answer_. The same which God spake in the twentieth chapter of
Exodus, &c.
Here is a plain acknowledgment that the ten commandments are still in
force, and that we are bound by our baptismal vows to keep them. Dr.
Vaughan affirms that they have “ceased to be our rule of life.” How can
these conflicting opinions be reconciled? or how can those persons
consistently use the formularies of our church, who so directly
contradict her teaching?
Having thus noticed more generally what we consider the unscriptural
opinions set forth in the pamphlet under review, we shall now proceed to
consider more particularly the Sabbath question. This is confessedly one
of the great questions of the day. So momentous, indeed, are its
bearings on the temporal and spiritual well-being of men, and so
intimately is it connected with the worship and honour of God, that its
importance can scarcely be overrated. If God is to be publicly
acknowledged and worshiped in his own world—if men are to be instructed
in the principles of revealed religion, and trained to habits of virtue
and christian love—if personal, domestic, social, and national happiness
is to be promoted—if time is to be so improved, as to make it the passage
to a blessed immortality—the obligation to keep the Sabbath must be
recognised, and its observance must be enforced and regulated according
to the injunctions of God’s holy word.
It is indeed asserted by some that, under the Christian dispensation, the
observance of a day of rest is a mere matter of expediency—that we are
under no divine obligation to abstain from labour or other worldly
pursuits—that the Sabbath was purely a Jewish institution, and has passed
away with the other “weak and beggarly elements” of Judaism. But on what
grounds are such assertions made? because, as it is alleged, there is no
positive command in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath, “no direction
for its observance, nor any reproof for the neglect of it,” and because
certain expressions are employed by St. Paul, which seem to bespeak
“indifference to its retention, or even rebuke for its revival.”
With regard to the first objection, viz. the want of a direct command,
this could scarcely be necessary, inasmuch as our Lord not only himself
kept the Sabbath, but in all his remarks in reference to it, spoke in a
manner that necessarily implied his recognition of its divine origin and
perpetual obligation. Besides, as he expressly declared that he came not
to destroy the law or the prophets, (both of which are full of
exhortations to keep the Sabbath), what right have we to deny the
obligation of the fourth commandment, because it is not expressly
repeated in the New Testament? The safer and more just way of reasoning
would surely be this: Under the former dispensation God in the most
solemn manner promulgated a law, connecting with its observance great
temporal and especially great spiritual blessings, and visiting its
violation with the most severe judgments. This law has not been formally
and explicitly abrogated, nor its sanctions withdrawn. The law,
therefore, still remains in force. Shew us that the fourth commandment
has been abrogated in as plain terms as those that were employed in its
promulgation; and then, and not till then, we may with a safe conscience
regard the observance of the Sabbath merely as a matter of Christian
expediency.
Where, again, was the necessity of “direction” for the observance of the
Sabbath, when the first Christians, (many of whom, as well as the
Apostles, were Jews) had the services of the Jewish synagogue as a model,
and the plain instructions of the law and prophets to guide them, both as
to the proper manner of keeping the Sabbath, and the spirit in which it
should be kept? We might as well deny the Christian obligation to
maintain the public worship of God, because in the New Testament no
directions are given for conducting it.
Nor would the absence of “reproof for the neglect” of the Sabbath be any
valid argument against the continued obligation of its observance. If
“in the primitive age” there were “churches in which _both_ (the Jewish
and the Christian Sabbaths) were observed,” it is scarcely probable that
any number of Christians would be found who neglected the Sabbath
altogether; and if there was little or no neglect of the observance of
the Sabbath, there would be little or no room for reproof on account of
its neglect. But is there no reproof to be found in the New Testament?
What does St. Paul mean by exhorting the Hebrews not to neglect the
assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was? {12a} Few
will deny that this passage refers to the public worship of the Christian
church, which we know was held on the Lord’s day. Here, then, we have at
least indirect reproof; and its connection with what follows will perhaps
suggest an additional reason for the absence of more frequent and more
direct reproof. So essential a part of practical Christianity was the
observance of the Sabbath deemed, that scarcely any ventured to neglect
it, and they who did so, were considered in danger of apostasy. {12b} If
the reasons stated be valid arguments against the divine obligation to
keep the Sabbath, what can be urged to prove the duty of females to
partake of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Here, although the
institution was entirely new, and peculiar to the new dispensation, yet
we find neither direct command, nor reproof for neglect, nor even mention
made of any females having partaken of that Sacrament. And yet who would
venture to pronounce these sufficient reasons for denying the obligation
of women to receive the memorials of their dying Saviour’s love?
With regard to those passages in which “the language employed is” said to
be “that either of indifference to its retention, or even of rebuke for
its revival,” we apprehend that the intention of the apostle was neither
to condemn the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, nor to intimate that
Christians were under no moral obligation to keep any Sabbath whatever.
If he was speaking exclusively of the Jewish weekly Sabbath (of which
there is no sufficient proof), his object was, either to vindicate
Gentile Christians from the obligation of its observance, or to condemn
the self-righteous spirit in which it was kept. “Let no man judge you in
meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of
the Sabbaths” (or sabbatical appointments.) {13} All these were _Jewish_
ordinances, from which the council at Jerusalem, guided by the Holy
Ghost, had declared _Gentile_ believers to be free. They were local and
national, and the various sacrifices and offerings connected with them
could be presented only at Jerusalem, and by Jews or proselytes. They
were therefore declared to be of no obligation to the Gentile believer.
On the contrary, these observances became injurious both to Jewish and
Gentile Christians, if they were kept in a self-righteous spirit. “I am
afraid of you (says St. Paul to the Galatians), lest I have bestowed upon
you labour in vain.” “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and
years.” Was the apostle rebuking his brethren for the revival of what
had “died out?” Was he not rather blaming them for observing in an
antichristian spirit, what they were not _bound_ to observe at all? In
his epistle to the Romans, he declares that the observance of these days
is in itself a matter of indifference. “One man esteemeth one day above
another, another esteemeth every day. He that regardeth the day,
regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord
he doth not regard it.” {14} How then could he be rebuking the Galatians
for simply doing what he himself declares might be done with a good
conscience, and acceptably to Christ? Besides if the language of the
Apostle must necessarily be understood as conveying rebuke for observing
the Sabbath, and consequently be a valid proof, that the obligation to
observe it is done away, much more might the same argument be deduced
from the still stronger language employed by God in the book of the
Prophet Isaiah: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination
unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and
your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them.” {15} What would have been thought of a Jewish
teacher who should have affirmed from this passage, that the rites here
enumerated were for ever abolished? And yet such a view would have had
more to support it, than the doctrine attempted to be established by the
statement of the Apostle. In both cases, we apprehend, it was not the
observance that was condemned, nor the obligation that was denied; but
the reproof was levelled at the motives and the state of mind by which
the observance was attended. An antinomian spirit was condemned by the
Prophet—a self-righteous spirit by the Apostle.
The absence of a formal abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, and the formal
substitution of the Christian Sabbath in its place, is in perfect
accordance with the whole plan of divine providence, for the introduction
and establishment of Christianity in the world. The religion of Moses
was never formally abolished. Our Lord lived and died in it; and his
Apostles and the early Jewish disciples occasionally at least observed
its rites, and still worshiped at the temple and in the synagogue. Both
religions were from God. Both had the same end. The same truths and the
same spirit were essential to both. The shadows of the one gave place to
the substance of the other. But in all that was vital, moral, saving,
the two religions were identical. “He was not a Jew who was one
outwardly, and circumcision was that of the heart, in the spirit, and not
in the letter.” In like manner we conceive, what was purely and
necessarily Jewish in the observance of the Sabbath, passed away with the
mere externals of Judaism; but all that was essential to the spirit of
the command remained in full force.
But it is asked, if the observance of the Sabbath be of divine and
perpetual obligation, why have Christians changed the day, and why do
they not keep the Sabbath in the manner enjoined in the Old Testament?
We reply, that the lawgiver, the “Lord of the Sabbath,” has by his own
acts, declarations, and example, and by the example of his inspired
Apostles, sanctioned both the change of the day, and the alteration in
the manner of its observance. Christianity was not to be confined to one
country, nor was it necessarily to be a national religion. It was to
overspread the world, and was to be suited to all countries and climes.
It was therefore necessary that whatever was merely local and national in
the observance of the Sabbath, should be relaxed or removed; and this
might be done, and was done, without either touching the moral obligation
of the law, or taking from its observance a particle of what is vital and
essential. {16} Our Lord did not abrogate the seventh commandment when
he declared, that the unchaste look was a breach of it. Neither did he
set aside the fourth commandment, when he worked miracles of mercy on the
Sabbath day; when he defended his disciples who were blamed for plucking
ears of corn on the Sabbath day; when he declared it was “lawful to do
good on the Sabbath day.” And if the seventh day had hitherto been kept
as a sign between God the Creator and his creature man, and as a memorial
of creating goodness; surely there was great propriety in changing the
day, so as to make the Sabbath observance a sign between God the Redeemer
and his redeemed creature man, and a memorial of redeeming love, as well
as an emblem of the eternal Sabbath, {17} which is the hope of the
christian. Nor can we imagine that the most explicit command for the
change of the day, could have come with greater force to the followers of
Christ, than the recorded facts, that the Saviour rose on the first day
of the week, that after his resurrection, he selected that day to meet
his disciples, that his people ever after regularly kept the first day,
and that this day bears in Scripture the honoured appellation of “the
Lord’s day.” In this change, however, nothing is given up that is
essential in the command to keep holy the Sabbath day. One day in seven
is to be set apart to the service of God; in it no unnecessary work is to
be done; but works of necessity and of charity on that day are sanctioned
by our Lord himself. And this is so far from being opposed to what was
required under the former dispensation, that it agrees entirely with the
teaching of the prophet Isaiah, who instructed the Jews, that the proper
and acceptable way of keeping the Sabbath, was, “not to do their own
ways,” nor to “speak their own words,” nor to “find their own pleasure;”
but to “call the Sabbath a delight, holy of the Lord, honourable.” {18}
Here it will be objected, that this reasoning proceeds on the assumption,
that the Sabbath is of divine and perpetual obligation, and that the
justness of this assumption is altogether denied. Well then, let us
proceed to the proof. It will not be denied, that in the law of the ten
commandments, commonly called the moral law, twice written by the finger
of God, and delivered to the Jews in the most solemn manner by the voice
of Jehovah himself, there is a plain command to “keep holy the Sabbath
day.” It will not be denied, that this appointment was made as “a sign”
or memorial of the relation that subsisted between God and his Church,
and that this sign was to be continued in succeeding generations. It
will not be denied, that this appointment was guarded by sanctions of the
most important kind—great blessings being promised to its observance, and
severe judgments being threatened against those who should disregard it.
In all this we see, that to _the Jews_ the observance of the Sabbath was
of divine obligation, and that that obligation continued so long as the
law itself was unrepealed. In other words, until the same authority by
which the law was promulgated, shall plainly declare it abolished, every
Jew is bound to keep the Sabbath, on pain of incurring the displeasure of
Almighty God.
But was the Jew the only person that was brought under the sanctions of
this law? Were not all proselytes from the Gentiles bound by the same
obligations, as they were also partakers of the same blessings with the
Jews? And does the obligation stop even here? What is the meaning of
this passage from the prophet Isaiah? “Also the sons of the stranger,
that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of
the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from
polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to
my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . . for
mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” {20a}
Surely this language must have reference to the times of the gospel, when
the gentile nations would be admitted into the church of God, and become
partakers of the blessings of the new covenant. In support of this view
it may be mentioned, that St. Paul states expressly that gentile
believers have no separate and independent standing in the economy of
redemption, but are as scions cut out of a wild olive tree and grafted
into the Jewish stock, and so with the natural branches, partake of its
root and fatness. Or, using another figure, he reminds the Ephesians,
that before their conversion they had been “aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel,” but that now they were “fellow citizens with the saints, and
of the household of God.” If this view be correct, and we see not how
its correctness can be disproved, the Sabbath with its responsibilities
and its blessings, is not confined to Jews, or to proselytes to the
Jewish religion. Its observance is binding upon all who profess to
believe the scriptures and to worship the God of the Bible.
We cannot help regarding as very untenable the opinion of those, who
dissever the fourth commandment from the rest of the decalogue, under the
plea that it is not properly speaking _moral_, {20b} and therefore has
not the same force as the commandments of the second table—as if the
express command of our Maker were not infinitely above every
consideration arising from the nature of the injunction given, or as if
man’s reason or man’s moral sense were competent to make a distinction
where God has made none. What right have we, under any pretence
whatever, to deny the obligation of a law, so plainly, so solemnly, so
awfully promulgated by the God of heaven himself? The very position of
the fourth commandment in the decalogue, might teach men to regard it
with peculiar veneration. It is the link that binds together heaven and
earth—our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour. It is the pillar
that supports the whole moral and religious fabric. To attempt to set
aside the obligation to observe the fourth commandment, is therefore, in
our view, a daring attack on the authority of the Lawgiver. It is a
temerity equalled only by that of the church of Rome in expunging from
the decalogue the second commandment.
We acknowledge the greater consistency of those who affirm, that the
whole moral law is swept away by the gospel; though we much regret that
any true Christians, and those too, persons who are friendly to a proper
observance of the Lord’s day, should hold notions which appear to us
opposed to Scripture, and calculated to produce among the unthinking
multitude, the most serious consequences. If indeed it were true, that
the whole decalogue is abrogated by Christianity, no supposed immoral
results would deter us from boldly proclaiming the fact. In that case,
we should not shrink from telling men that our church is under a serious
mistake, when she teaches her members to confess their guilt in breaking
each of the ten commandments, to ask for pardon, and to implore grace to
keep them in time to come. But it is because we believe in our heart
that the decalogue is still in force, and that God’s honour and man’s
happiness alike demand its observance, that we are not “bold enough” to
proclaim as “liberty” what we are sure would lead to the greatest
licentiousness. A theory of the kind may not seriously injure men of
real piety and great spirituality of mind; but to others it would be
productive of the most lamentable consequences.
But if Christianity has freed us from the moral law, an announcement to
that effect must be recorded in the New Testament, and recorded in no
obscure or doubtful terms, such as can by any possibility be
misunderstood, but in language as plain, as perspicuous, and as
authoritative, as that employed in the original promulgation of the law.
For here we are not called upon to give up merely some external
observance, or to change the mode or the time of performing some
appointed duty (for _that_ a less explicit intimation of the divine will
would suffice); but we are told to renounce what in its very nature is
essential to all acceptable obedience, and what above every other part of
revelation bears marks of the divine impress. If the moral law is to be
renounced as part of “the weak and beggarly elements” of the Mosaic
religion, we must have the voice of God as distinctly abrogating the ten
commandments as it was heard in their original promulgation. Nothing
less will satisfy us, and nothing else, we venture to say, ought to
satisfy any man who believes, that at the bar of God he must answer for
the use he has made of the divine revelation contained in the Bible. {22}
Now, can any man shew, or does any man pretend to shew, a single passage
of scripture in which it is plainly stated, that the decalogue is
abrogated under the Christian dispensation? We are well aware that
obedience to the law forms no part of man’s justification—for “Christ is
the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” We
know too that love is the essence of all obedience—for “love is the
fulfilling of the law.” But we know likewise that “this is the love of
God, that we keep his commandments.” Nor can we conceive how the purest
and most fervent love can be properly manifested, towards God or man,
without some infallible guidance for its expression in the different
relations of life. {23a} This we have briefly and essentially in the
decalogue; while the principles there enunciated, are in the prophets and
in the New Testament more fully developed and expanded. And in the
absence of some plain revelation to justify such a course, we would fain
know on what principle the _comment_ (so to speak) is retained, when the
_text_ itself is rejected. If the law written by the finger of God and
published by his own mouth may thus be ignored, what reason can be urged
for listening to the moral teaching of Prophets and Apostles? But if the
law of the ten commandments has not been annulled, the command to keep
the Sabbath is still in force. For he that said “thou shalt not kill,”
said also, “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” On this ground
then we rest our defence of the divine and perpetual obligation of the
Sabbath. God has not revoked his own solemn decree published with his
own lips on Mount Sinai. Till this is done, the decree with all its
sanctions continues in full force.
Here we are content to stop; though we feel that the argument might be
carried much further. For we believe that had there been no command in
the law of Moses, enjoining the observance of the Sabbath; still both
Jews and Gentiles would have been bound by the original institution,
{23b} coeval with man’s being, and forming the only positive appointment
of God, imposed on our first parents in a state of innocency. He
“blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” This thought will probably
have little weight with those who are not convinced by our previous
arguments; but it will doubtless lead some to reflect, that if the
Sabbath was needed for man’s welfare even in the garden of Eden, much
more is it required for the good of both body and soul in his present
condition of sin and toil and sorrow; and that if the Father of Goodness
gave his sinless creatures a day of rest from worldly employment, and a
weekly Sabbath for more continued and intimate communion with himself;
the compassion of the same gracious Being would not only lead him to
continue the appointment, now so much more needed in man’s fallen state,
but also to command such an observance of the day, as man’s altered
circumstances rendered necessary. Now, this can only be effected by
making it imperative on all to “keep holy” the sacred day themselves, and
to afford to others facilities to keep it. If it were to be regarded
merely as a privilege, to be enjoyed or neglected at pleasure, it would
not answer the end intended. In man’s present condition, he cannot by
nature appreciate the boon, nor desire the spiritual blessings that the
appointment is especially intended to convey. The observance of the
Sabbath must therefore be laid upon his conscience as a duty, that in
seeking to fulfil that duty, he may be continually brought under the
means of grace, and the influence of Christian principles, until by God’s
grace he is led to feel the blessedness of a well spent Sabbath, and
keeps from a motive of love, what he at first observed from a sense of
duty.